Posted on 02/04/2015 3:57:02 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
Britain's right-wing Independence Party has outraged Jews by announcing it is backing a ban on shechita, a reversal of its prior policy.
Britain’s right-wing UK Independence Party (UKIP) has voted to support a plan to outlaw the ritual slaughter of animals for meat without prior stunning. UKIP is the fourth largest British party in the European Parliament.
Britain’s RSPCA and the British Veterinary Association have called on the government to ban ritual slaughter. Prime Minister David Cameron has promised to allow exemptions for religious purposes such as the Jewish practice of “shechita” and the Muslim tradition of “halal.”
Both forbid stunning the animal before slaughter, which in Jewish law must be accomplished with a scrupulously sharpened blade and a single, rapid, surgical cut.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who reversed himself in the vote and backed the ban, has since been accused of driving Jews from Britain with the new policy, the Daily Mail reported.
British Jews are already considering their alternatives in the face of rising anti-Semitism at home and across Europe. Last summer alone there was a 400 percent increase in the number of anti-Semitic crimes committed in Britain.
“We respect religious groups to carry out slaughter in the UK according to how they define and read their scriptures. What we do not allow however is for the rights and demands of groups within those religion override the UK’s compassionate traditions of animal welfare.
“Animal and veterinary science has long concluded that cutting the throats of animals whilst they are fully conscious can cause significant distress and pain. We see no reason why religious groups should not take into account the concerns of animal welfare when carrying out slaughter,” the party said in its statement, calling the government’s protection of religious rights “weak, lazy and bordering on spineless.”
Agriculture spokesperson Stuart Agnew told Britain’s Jewish Chronicle newspaper he opposed the policy but was overruled. “This isn’t aimed at you – it’s aimed elsewhere – it’s aimed at others. You’ve been caught in the crossfire; collateral damage. You know what I mean.”
Both Agnew and Farage had previously vowed to oppose the ban.
About the Author: Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.
Jewish tradition doesn’t regard the pig as intrinsically evil the way Islam does. It’s just forbidden as food for people. It’s OK for pets that belong to a Jew, for example. Very different treatment than Islam.
“Chrstians assume Judaism is merely a historical stage in the development of chrstianity. This is the one and only reason that chrstians support Jews at all.”
Ha! Now who is being a religious bigot? Some Christians might think that way, but we are not monolithic, and I don’t think that the majority of Christians think that way. What you are presenting as the majority view of Christians is actually a well-recognized heresy condemned by most of the churches that formalize that stuff. So, it would be equivalent to me saying “Well, all Jews think that this Hasidic guy who lives in Eastern Europe is the Messiah”. Both wrong, and wrong-headed.
“In fact, it has many things in common with islam—things that FReepers are not at all shy about condemning.”
No, you are off base here. What FReepers condemn about Islam, Judaism has nothing to do with. There is no jihad in Judaism, no beheadings for infidels and apostates, no child brides, or raping of women as “war prizes”, etc. You seem to be miffed that we insult Islamists by denigrating their traditions (abstaining from pork, etc) that might be similar to yours. However, we are not condeming Islam because of those traditions, they are just a handy target to use to express our disdain of their barbarity.
Why does a FReepers want to shoot a Islamist with a pork-wrapped bullet? It’s not because they hate people who don’t eat pork! It’s because they hate the Islamist and his evil ideology, and they think that shooting him with a substance that he would hate is an appropriate insult.
“What about the condemnation of islam as “not really a religion” because it is a total way of life. Do people not realize that Judaism is an all-embracing way of life—in fact, not just a “religion” but quite literally a Theocratic state in exile?”
Alright, this is a better comparison, but there is still an important difference. Judaism has a political component, yes, but it is a national religion. Jews never tried to found an empire and impose their system on the world. Nor do they expect that they can demand their political system be instituted in a foreign land just because they happen to live there. Islamists demand both of these things, and have for centuries. They are a revolutionary political religion, not simply a national political religion, like Judaism. Obviously, if Jews decided that the laws of Israel needed to be instituted in America, or across the whole world, people would object to that just as strenuously.
“And how many times have FReepers condemned the stoning of adulterers and adulteresses as “savage?””
Well, on that count you are going to have to be prepared to deal with peoples’ opinions. What is “savage” to someone is going to depend on their personal values, and so you’ll inevitably have to defend your beliefs against those kinds of accusations. Christians have to defend themselves against the same kinds of accusations. In fact, we are regularly accused by atheists of being hypocrites because we don’t want to stone adulterers!
“Is it being implied that Jews will have to alter their G-d-given laws in order to be good “modern” Americans?”
God never told you to implement those laws in America, did He? So what does it have to do with being a good American? As long as you don’t try it here, even the people who do think it is savage are not going to care very much about it, I think.
“One day the Holy Temple will be rebuilt and the Davidic King will rule from Jerusalem and the illusion of Judaism as a mere “religious denomination” will be exploded. Will FReepers (and chrstian conservatives) go on the warpath when this happens?”
Ah, well that is million dollar question I suppose. However, you are talking about events that are literally prophetic, they are ordained by God and only He knows all the details of how the fulfillment will play out. I can say that Christians (the ones who pay attention to this stuff) are well aware of the prophecies in the Jewish scriptures and they have their counterparts in the Christian scriptures which inform our opinions on the matter. However, there is no one overriding interpretation that all Christians agree on with regards to those prophecies, we are all over the place.
Still, I can see, if you are familiar with our prophecies, why you might worry. If someone were to claim the throne of a state in Israel, with a new temple, and reinstituted sacrifices, then yes, a great many Christians would probably view that man as an enemy. However, we are not commanded to “go on the warpath”, even against the one who we think is “the antichrist”. Our scriptures tell us that Jesus will defeat that person himself, with an army that isn’t from this world. We look forward to being persecuted in that day (except for the Christians who think they will disappear first), and not to fighting back against our enemies with violence.
Schechitah is the method of slaughter specified for sacrifices performed at the Temples and for kosher meat today. According to G-d, it is the most humane way to take the life of an animal. If it's good enough for G-d, who are these arrogant humans to decry it?
“There will be no other Temple.”
What of 2 Thes. 3-4 then?:
“3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.”
Rather it is islam that has taken such things in common with Judaism, and attempted to make them their own. Thus their ridiculous claim that Abraham was the first muslim some three to four thousand years before anyone had ever heard of mohamhead.
It doesn’t have to be a literal Temple in Jerusalem.
“fox hunting was not a Divine commandment.”
In certain circumstances I could see it touching on #7
Voting against Halal slaughter gets this reaction from the crazy, insane, dhimmi media.
everyone knows they were voting against Halal slaughter
The only thing the UK has any moral responsibility to preserve is the safety and freedom of the English, Irish and Scots. If their land is desirable for another ethnicity to inhabit, and that group poses no threat to the safety or culture of the aforementioned groups, then they can live there amongst the native populace. If not, they can find another country. The UK is not the US, it is not a melting pot founded in another peoples’ territory, it is a Island and a (few, very closely related) people with its own traditions that may or may not be compatible with others. If not, that’s not their problem.
Incidentally, if Israel were to enact laws that made Gentile life impossible I would support that. It’s THEIR country.
I’m sorry that they could not find a work-around for this but unfortunately the Muslims pose such an existential threat at the moment that any move to get them out has to take priority. Too bad there isn’t a loophole to get around it like there evidently is for stoning adulteresses. Oh, would those women be willing adulteresses or does that encompass rape victims too? Your comparisons to Muslims made me curious.
Don’t Jews in Britain and elsewhere have more important things to worry about?
Remember, after having cooperated against Jacob, Ishmael ultimately repents while Esau does not.
What kind of temple is it then?
Remember, Matthew 24:15 references Daniel 9, confirming that the “abomination of desolation” will stand in the “holy place”, and this is a sign to flee Judea specifically. Daniel 9 says this abomination is set up in the temple, and says the one who does this causes sacrifices and oblations to cease, which are temple services. This prophecy was also given, as we see in Daniel 9, verse 20:
“While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill— “
The holy hill is, of course, the Temple mount, so this prophecy was given as Daniel prayed specifically about the physical location of the Temple. The introduction of the prophecy also states in verse 24:
“Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place.”
So, we have references to the Temple, the holy place, temple services, the holy hill, the “Most Holy Place”, Judea, and the holy city. All in connection with the abomination of desolation which is clearly an end time event, shortly preceding the second coming. That’s an awful lot of specific references to try to discount as not literal. For what reason should we read them another way?
“What kind of temple is it then?”
Depends on who you ask. I know of three interpretations: 1) the actual Temple in Jerusalem, 2) the Church, 3) a metaphor.
“abomination of desolation” - which many believe was the action of Antiochus Ephiphanes IV in 167 BC - which I am sure you know all about. Jesus uses the phrase as a past reference to a past event in anticipation of a similar (then) future event - the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70.
“Jesus uses the phrase as a past reference to a past event in anticipation of a similar (then) future event - the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70.”
This answer makes no sense in light of the context of Matthew 24. Jesus was responding to this question:
“3 As he was sitting on the Mount of Olives,[c] the disciples approached him privately and said, “Tell us, when will this happen, and what sign will there be of your coming, and of the end of the age?””
So, Jesus’ answer is necessarily on the topic of the second coming, at the end of the age. This is confirmed by Christ’s answer. He begins describing events preceding the end:
“6 You will hear of wars[e] and reports of wars; see that you are not alarmed, for these things must happen, but it will not yet be the end.”
These events described “will not yet be the end”, so they precede it. Then, he says a little later:
“14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations,[h] and then the end will come.”
So this event happens and “then the end will come”, so this event directly precedes “the end”. Next, he describes the desolation of abomination, and then a “great tribulation”:
“21 for at that time there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will be.”
So this tribulation can’t be simply the destruction of Jerusalem, since that already happened before. Your assertion that he points back at a past event which will repeat is directly contradicted by Christ’s own words in that verse. He says that it is instead a unique event in all of human history.
We can also place this tribulation chronologically quite easily, because Jesus continues:
“29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.
30 And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.”
So the tribulation is immediately before the second coming of Christ, which has not happened yet. This again directly contradicts any interpretation of these verses as applying to a past event.
There may be three interpretations, but only one can be correct and in agreement with scripture.
Oh and Wales, I forgot Wales. And I’m a Jones!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.